resume film pentagon papers

The True Story Behind 'The Post'

Though the Times was then the nation's preeminent paper, the Post 's reputation was on the rise, thanks in large part to Bradlee. Graham had surprised many by moving him from the newsmagazine Newsweek , but the pick had been a good one, as he’d improved the quality of the paper and its newsroom. Getting scooped by the Times stung Bradlee: He demanded his team come up with their own set of the Papers while swallowing his pride to have the Post produce articles based upon their rival's reporting.

The 'Times' was issued a court order to cease printing the Papers

The Pentagon Papers report, which had been commissioned by former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara , covered events from the presidencies of Harry Truman to Lyndon Johnson . Yet even though actions by Richard Nixon 's administration hadn't been exposed, the White House hated having this classified information brought to light.

Nixon and his team felt that the nation learning about government lies during the conflict in Vietnam could further erode public trust and support. In addition, there were worries that negotiations with the North Vietnamese could be undermined. Nixon also loathed the idea of leakers harming his administration (he didn't have a record of spotless conduct himself, having possibly interfered in peace talks prior to winning the presidency in 1968).

Attorney General John Mitchell told the Times that they were violating the Espionage Act and jeopardizing U.S. defense interests. When the paper refused to stop publishing, the government obtained a court order to bar further publication on June 15.

Printing the Papers could have jeopardized the future of the 'Post'

On June 16, Washington Post national editor Ben Bagdikian, who'd figured out the leaker was Daniel Ellsberg, went to Boston with the promise of getting his own copy of the Pentagon Papers. The next morning Bagdikian returned to Washington, D.C., with 4,400 photocopied pages (an incomplete set, as the original report was 7,000 pages). The photocopies got their own first-class seat on the return flight before being brought to Bradlee's house (where Bradlee’s daughter actually was selling lemonade outside). There, a team of editors and reporters began to study the documents and write articles.

However, the Post 's reporters and its legal team clashed: The Washington Post Company was in the middle of its first public stock offering (to the tune of $35 million), and being charged with a criminal offense could jeopardize this. In addition, the prospectus had stated that what the Post published was for the national good; sharing national secrets might be considered an abrogation of those terms.

Criminal charges would also mean the possibility of losing television station licenses worth about $100 million. And attorneys pointed out that the Post could be accused of violating the court order that had been issued against the Times , so their paper's legal jeopardy was potentially even higher than what the Times had initially faced.

Graham ignored the advice of the attorney

As the debate went on between editorial and legal, on June 17, Graham was hosting a party for a departing employee. In the middle of a heartfelt toast, she had to stop and take a phone call for an emergency consultation about whether or not to publish. Graham had become head of the Washington Post Company following her husband’s suicide in 1963, taking a job she'd never expected to hold in order to maintain family control of the paper. She’d overcome doubts and gained confidence in her position — enough to take the title of publisher in 1969 — but she’d never faced a choice like this one.

When Graham asked Washington Post Company Chairman Fritz Beebe, an attorney and trusted adviser, whether he would publish, he answered, "I guess I wouldn’t." Graham wondered if it was possible to delay publication, given how much was at risk, but Bradlee and other staff made it clear that the newsroom would object to any delay. Editorial head Phil Geyelin told Graham, "There’s more than one way to destroy a newspaper," meaning that the paper's morale would be devastated by not publishing.

Smaller papers, like the Boston Globe , were also getting ready to publish, and no one wanted the Post to be embarrassed by being left behind. In her memoir, Personal History (1997), Graham described her belief that the way Beebe had responded gave her an opening to ignore his advice. In the end, she told her team, "Let’s go. Let’s publish."

The government tried to stop the 'Post' from publishing the Papers

The first Washington Post article about the Pentagon Papers appeared on June 18. The Justice Department soon warned the paper that it had violated the Espionage Act and risked U.S. defense interests. Like the Times , the Post refused to stop publication, so the government proceeded to court. Publication was enjoined around 1 a.m. on June 19, but that day's edition was already being printed, so it did contain information about the Papers.

As the case wound its way through the court system, the government argued that national security and diplomatic relations had been put at risk by publication (though reporters were able to show that much of the information the government objected to was already public). At one point the Justice Department asked that the Post defendants not attend hearings due to security concerns, a request the judge refused to allow. Secrecy was maintained, however, with some proceedings held in rooms with blacked-out windows.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 'Post'

The Supreme Court decided to hear the Post and Times cases together on June 26. On June 30, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that supported the papers' right to publish, a victory for freedom of the press.

Publishing the Pentagon Papers not only increased the Washington Post 's national standing, but it also let the newsroom know that their publisher believed in freedom of the press enough to put everything at stake. This commitment would come in handy when reporters at the paper began looking into a break-in at the Watergate office complex, the beginning of an investigation that would bring down Richard Nixon's presidency (ironically, this break-in was conducted by a group of "plumbers" that Nixon had wanted to prevent leaks like the Pentagon Papers).

Movies Based on True Stories

The True Story of Bob Marley’s One Love Concert

The True Story of ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’

The Oppenheimer Cast And Their IRL Counterparts

The True Story Behind ‘Society of the Snow’

The Tragic True Story of the ‘Ferrari’ Movie

Get to Know Enzo Ferrari’s Sons, Piero and Dino

Where Is Kevin Von Erich Today?

‘The Iron Claw:’ The Von Erich Family’s True Story

‘The Iron Claw’ Leaves Out a Von Erich Brother

The True Story of Leonard Bernstein’s Marriage

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

“We have to be the check on their power. We don’t hold them accountable, my God, who will?” Steven Spielberg ’s “The Post,” rushed into production on a turnaround time that only Ridley Scott could possibly match, may be the story of a challenge to the free press in 1971 but lines like that solidify how much it’s intended to also be read as a mirror of 2017. As the President of the United States challenges different journalistic institutions, mostly through his Twitter feed, and “truth” seems to have become a looser term than ever before, “The Post” is designed to be viewed as a commentary on today as much as yesterday, maybe even more. It’s fascinating to consider a film this well-constructed and packed with talented performers that would have played completely differently just two years ago. However, I wonder if hurrying the movie to strike a moment was the right decision. It's a film that often calls attention to its own self-importance and falters when compared to Spielberg’s best historical dramas like “ Munich ” and “ Lincoln ,” movies that earn their messages instead of just stating them. One can almost see the weight on its shoulders to “say something important,” and it sometimes drags down the entire venture. However, there’s more than enough to like here, including a great ensemble, the best performance from a living legend in years, and, again, a message that feels depressingly timely.

“The Post” tells the story of the Pentagon Papers, choosing to focus on two key players in the unfolding battle between the free press and a White House that struggled to keep the secrets of how our government handled the Vietnam War under wraps. As Fritz Beebe ( Tracy Letts , continuing his amazing 2017) says at one point, this was the first time that the court system of our government basically tried to stop the function of the free press.

It started when Daniel Ellsberg ( Matthew Rhys ) walked away with thousands of pages on the history of Vietnam, including sensitive and confidential information that revealed the lies the government had told the American people for years. To sum it up superficially with a line from the movie, “McNamara knew we couldn’t win in ’65.” Six years later, with thousands of deaths on their hands, the truth was revealed, first in the  New York Times . The courts ruled that the Times couldn’t publish any more of the documents or what they learned from them, but the  Washington Post found their way into the story as well with Ben Bagdikian ( Bob Odenkirk ) getting to the same source as his competition. Suddenly, the Post was sitting on hundreds of pages of sensitive documents that the courts had ruled couldn’t be published. If they ran a story, not only could they go out of business, they could literally be arrested for treason. What would you do?

The two central figures of this story are Kay Graham ( Meryl Streep ), the beleaguered publisher of the Post , doing a good job that too many men around her consider her incapable of doing, and Ben Bradlee ( Tom Hanks ), the editor of the Post , and the man who never questions whether of not they should publish. In casting alone, Spielberg makes clear his opinion of Graham and Bradlee, filling their shoes with two of the most beloved actors of all time. And they both deliver for their director, particularly Streep, who hasn’t given a performance this nuanced in a very long time—reminding one what she can do when she’s paired with the right collaborator (my biggest problem with Streep’s ‘00s and ‘10s work is how rarely she works with directors who challenge her). Hanks finds the right degree of gravity for Bradlee as well, although both occasionally slip up due to a script that too often calls attention to itself. This story should be about Graham’s fear that she may make the wrong decision—for her business or for the state of journalism as a whole—but the stakes don’t always feel right. We never really question what anyone is going to do in “The Post," especially given how well-reported this story has been. (Although even if you know none of this story, there's a distinct lack of suspense.) And to make up for that lack of actual tension, co-writers Liz Hannah and Josh Singer sprinkle in heavy doses of the kind of things people only say in movies (“Jefferson just rolled over in his grave,” for example). I often wanted a more tactile, dirtier version of “The Post,” one that didn’t feel like it was taking place in a Hollywood vacuum. Bob Odenkirk almost steals the movie just by seeming the least like a mouthpiece.

However, the truth is that every time “The Post” threatens to slide into pure, pretentious melodrama, the talent of someone involved pulls it out. Whether it’s a subtle choice made by Streep or Hanks, an economy of storytelling displayed by Spielberg, a composition by John Williams —there’s always something to hold on to in “The Post” that keeps it working. Even the sound design—a symphony of typewriter clicking and ringing phones singing out through the Post offices—is engaging. It’s a movie from one of our most essential filmmakers when it comes to pure entertainment, and it works on that level. Even just the parade of familiar faces (I didn’t even mention the always-welcome presences of Carrie Coon , David Cross , Sarah Paulson , or Pat Healy ) will keep you engaged.

Will that engagement continue after the journalistic tumult of the Trump administration? If we’ve learned anything, it’s that challenges to the free press will always persist, and so there are almost certainly lessons for future generations in “The Post.” Will it hold up as cinema outside of its cultural moment? On the one hand, it doesn’t really matter. Despite what people want to argue in comments sections, film doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it often responds to and plays differently because of current events. And so while I’m curious to see how people remember “The Post” in ten years, we can only respond to it today, as institutions like the newspaper at its center are yet again under attack. Where are the Kay Grahams and Ben Bradlees of today? While I wish “The Post” asked this question more directly and angrily, there’s definite value in people this prominent asking it at all.

Brian Tallerico

Brian Tallerico is the Managing Editor of RogerEbert.com, and also covers television, film, Blu-ray, and video games. He is also a writer for Vulture, The Playlist, The New York Times, and GQ, and the President of the Chicago Film Critics Association.

Now playing

Matt Zoller Seitz

Simon Abrams

It's Only Life After All

Sheila o'malley.

Clint Worthington

Christy Lemire

Film Credits

The Post (2017)

Rated PG-13 for language and brief war violence.

115 minutes

Meryl Streep as Kay Graham

Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee

Tracy Letts as Fritz Beebe

Alison Brie as Lally Weymouth

Carrie Coon as Meg Greenfield

Bob Odenkirk as Ben Bagdikian

David Cross as Phil Geyelin

Bruce Greenwood as Robert McNamara

Sarah Paulson as Tony Bradlee

Jesse Plemons as Roger Clark

Matthew Rhys as Howard Simons

Michael Stuhlbarg as Eugene Patterson

Bradley Whitford as Fritz Beebe

Zach Woods as Daniel Ellsberg

Pat Healy as Phil Geyelin

Kelly AuCoin as Kevin Maroney

• Steven Spielberg
• Josh Singer

Cinematographer

• Janusz Kaminski
• Sarah Broshar
• Michael Kahn
• John Williams

Latest blog posts

Ned Benson, Lucy Boynton, and Justin H. Min Want to Play The Greatest Hits for You

Until It’s Too Late: Bertrand Bonello on The Beast

O.J. Simpson Dies: The Rise & Fall of A Superstar

Which Cannes Film Will Win the Palme d’Or? Let’s Rank Their Chances

Advertisement

Supported by

Review: In ‘The Post,’ Democracy Survives the Darkness

• Share full article

By Manohla Dargis

• Dec. 21, 2017

Steven Spielberg’s exhilarating drama “The Post” is about a subject that’s dear to the heart of journalists: themselves! Set largely during a few anxious weeks in 1971, it revisits The Washington Post’s decision to publish portions of the Pentagon Papers , an immense classified report that chronicled America’s involvement in Southeast Asia from World War II to 1968. In Mr. Spielberg’s hands, that decision becomes a ticktock thriller about the freedom of the press, the White House’s war on that constitutional right and the middle-aged woman who defended freedom in a fabulous gold caftan.

The real story began with Daniel Ellsberg , the Marine turned government researcher turned clandestine peacenik who first gave the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times . The Times began running portions on June 13, 1971. After the attorney general, John Mitchell, accused The Times of violating the Espionage Act, a judge ordered it to stop publishing the papers. At a pivotal time in American history, the government was preventing the press from getting the news out, on the grounds that it would do injury to national security. Shortly thereafter, The Post, which had been publishing rewrites of The Times’s articles, began running its own excerpts, becoming part of a Supreme Court showdown over the First Amendment.

The Pentagon Papers give “The Post” its heft and pulse; the antagonism between the government and the media gives it a shiver of topicality. Even so, shaping a drama around a newspaper that didn’t break the story seems an odd path to Hollywood triumphalism, though the scrappy Post was itching to be a national player. There’s also the matter of the actual import of the Pentagon Papers. In his memoir, Ben Bradlee, The Post’s longtime editor — winningly played by Tom Hanks with macho suavity and an on-and-off Boston accent — devotes four times as much space to Watergate (a story that his paper did break) as to the Pentagon Papers. Except that “The Post” cares less about the hard-charging Bradlee than it does his boss, Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep), the paper’s late-blooming publisher .

The story opens in 1966 with Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys), a government analyst on a data-mining mission in Vietnam, pecking out reports on his portable typewriter amid exploding bombs and flowing blood. The secretary of defense, Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, wearing a frozen smile and an oil slick of hair), thinks the war is going badly but grossly mischaracterizes American progress to journalists. Disillusioned with the official script, Daniel eventually goes cloak-and-dagger rogue and is on his way to publicizing the Pentagon Papers, a momentous decision that Mr. Spielberg enlivens with spooky shadows and what may be the most nervous-making photocopying in film history.

The story soon jumps to Katharine, jolting out of a slumber, a sly preview of larger awakenings to come, both her own and that of the country. She’s about to take her company public, a move that she and a close adviser (Tracy Letts, wry and tart) hope will financially stabilize it. During the week that this business is finalized, though, the company will be temporarily vulnerable to its underwriters. The stock offering, Graham writes in her memoir, was scheduled for June 15. Two days, later, The Post had the Pentagon Papers. What happened next is a matter of record, history being the ultimate spoiler. The pleasure of “The Post” is how it sweeps you up in how it all went down.

Mostly, it went down fast, a pace that Mr. Spielberg conveys with accelerated rhythms, flying feet, racing cameras and an enjoyably loose approach to the material. With his virtuosic, veteran crew, Mr. Spielberg paints the scene vividly and with daubs of beauty; most notably, he creates distinct visual realms for the story’s two main overlapping, at times colliding worlds. Katharine reigns over one; at first she’s all but entombed in her darkly lighted, wood-paneled empire. Ben rules the other, overseeing the talking and typing warriors of the glaring, noisily freewheeling newsroom. (The costume designer Ann Roth subtly brightens Katharine, taking her from leaden gray to free-flowing gold.)

Just as Daniel will come into consciousness so will Katharine, a twinned metamorphosis that, in turn, speaks to the larger cultural and social changes shaking the country. Time and again, men crowd over and around Katharine, walking in front of her, speaking for her. As the drama heats up, the typewriters furiously clack — and the political becomes increasingly personal, and the personal turns political — Katharine finds both a new purpose and identity. With small tilts of her head, darting looks, nervous flutters and a Brahmin imperiousness that gradually eases and warms, Ms. Streep creates an acutely moving portrait of a woman who in liberating herself helps instigate a revolution.

Like many movies that turn the past into entertainment, “The Post” gently traces the arc of history, while also bending it for dramatic punch and narrative expediency. The filmmakers fold in atmospheric true-to-life details, like the poster for the western film “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” (a favorite of the real Mr. Ellsberg) that Daniel and some longhair pals sweep past on their way to illegally copying the Pentagon Papers. And while it’s no surprise that the movie omits and elides important players and crucial episodes, its honed focus jibes with the view of the former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis , who wrote that the “public disclosure of the Pentagon Papers challenged the core of a president’s power: his role in foreign and national security affairs.”

That challenge becomes the movie’s cri de coeur, its reason for being. And, as that challenge becomes a crusade, it leads to some lump-in-the-throat grandstanding about the press and its relationship to power. Ben and Katharine each have friends in high government places. These allegiances — to friends, to state authority — are tested by the Pentagon Papers, if rather more tested, perhaps, for the purposes of this fiction. Graham’s husband, Phil, and Bradlee were both close with John F. Kennedy. In her memoirs, Graham writes that her friend McNamara helpfully advised The Times on a legally sensitive letter about the Pentagon Papers, a detail that underscores the depth of these powerful allegiances.

The Pentagon Papers — officially titled “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force” — is an encyclopedia of outrageous decisions and acts, what Mr. Ellsberg once described as “evidence of lying, by four presidents and their administrations over twenty-three years, to conceal plans and actions of mass murder.” Mr. Ellsberg didn’t stop the war, but he did assert our right, and obligation, to challenge absolute power. That may be why the filmmakers — the script is by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer — slip in a bit from a speech that Mario Savio delivered two years before “The Post” opens and which memorably asserts: “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part!”

There’s more than a little corn and wishful thinking in the high-minded moments in “The Post”; movies like either to glorify or demonize journalists, relying on heroes and villains. Yet given the recent assaults on journalism and the truth, this heroizing is also irresistible. And Mr. Spielberg, a shrewd entertainer who can be waylaid by moralism, rarely lets virtue drag this movie down. He lightens the heaviness with humor, physical comedy (fumbling, stumbling) and a perfectly synced cast that includes the funnymen David Cross, Zach Woods and a terrific Bob Odenkirk. As a filmmaker, Mr. Spielberg invariably comes down on the side of optimism; here, that hopefulness feels right. It also feels like a rallying cry.

The Post Rated PG-13 for salty language. Running time: 1 hour 55 minutes.

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

Even before his new film “Civil War” was released, the writer-director Alex Garland faced controversy over his vision of a divided America  with Texas and California as allies.

Theda Hammel’s directorial debut, “Stress Positions,” a comedy about millennials weathering the early days of the pandemic , will ask audiences to return to a time that many people would rather forget.

“Fallout,” TV’s latest big-ticket video game adaptation, takes a satirical, self-aware approach to the End Times .

“Sasquatch Sunset” follows the creatures as they go about their lives. We had so many questions. The film’s cast and crew had answers .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

• Entertainment
• The True Story Behind <i>The Post</i>

The True Story Behind The Post

T he feverishly debated decision behind The Washington Post ‘s 1971 publication of top-secret information in the Pentagon Papers comes to life in the new movie The Post , in which Meryl Streep plays legendary publisher Katharine Graham and Tom Hanks takes on the role of the gruff but brilliant executive editor Ben Bradlee.

As Graham, Streep plays a leader who decides to publish the incendiary information about the Vietnam War amid great pressure, in both directions, from government officials, her lawyers and her own employees.

The papers fell into the Washington Post ‘s hands at a delicate time. The New York Times , which first reported on the papers, had been temporarily banned from publishing the information, which exposed that the government had repeatedly lied to the public about progress in the Vietnam War. Editors at the Post had a small window of time to jump on the story. President Nixon and his administration fought hard to keep the information from going public, even taking the case to the Supreme Court.

Here’s what The Post gets right (and wrong) about the newspaper’s role in the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Daniel Ellsberg was working for the RAND corporation when he decided to leak the Pentagon Papers.

Ellsberg, played in the movie by Matthew Rhys, worked as a military analyst for the RAND corporation, where he repeatedly snuck out classified military documents to photocopy over three months in 1969. He would copy the documents and return the originals the next day, and in 1971 he sent 7,000 pages exposing the government’s lies about the Vietnam War to the New York Times .

For this, Ellsberg became the first person to be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act and faced 115 years in prison. Charges were dropped, however, in a mistrial when it came to light that the government had illegally spied on the whistleblower.

Ellsberg has since gone on to become an activist decrying government secrecy. He recently published the book The Doomsday Machine , a revealing account of America’s nuclear program in the 1960s.

The Washington Post was in the process of becoming a publicly traded company at the time of the leak.

Katharine Graham noted in a 1997 interview with NPR that The Washington Post was in a vulnerable position during the time she decided to publish the Pentagon Papers because it was in the process of going public.

“We had announced our plans and not sold the stock,” Graham said. “So we were particularly liable to any kind of criminal prosecution from the government.”

In the film, this fact weighs heavily on Graham, who has taken leadership of the paper following her husband’s suicide. On top of the legal risks, publishing the papers posed a potentially existential threat to the newspaper.

When Post journalists received the papers, they were out of order with no page numbers.

As depicted in the movie, Post reporters really did camp out in Ben Bradlee’s library to go through the papers — which were not exactly organized efficiently. The complete Pentagon Papers were declassified in 2011, making them fully available online for the first time. The Washington Post reported in 2011 that the leaked versions of the papers that it and the New York Times received were heavily redacted, incomplete or illegible.

Katharine Graham was hosting a party on the night she decided to publish the Papers.

In her 1997 memoir Personal History , Graham wrote that she was hosting a party for a departing employee and was in the middle of delivering a toast, just like in the movie, when she was called to the telephone to make the call on whether to publish the papers. After much debate — and, as in the film, finally realizing the decision lay with her alone — Graham said, “Go go ahead, go ahead. Let’s go. Let’s publish.”

Graham was known for throwing great parties, attended by friends including high-ranking government officials like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. (Whether she was wearing a gold caftan as fabulous as the one Streep sports in the movie is difficult to ascertain.)

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Post.

The Supreme Court sided with the news when it ruled in favor of the Post and the New York Times publishing the top-secret information in the Pentagon Papers. In a six-to-three vote, the court ruled that the government did not adequately prove that it had the right to bar the newspapers from publishing the classified history of the Vietnam War on the claim that it was a national security risk.

President Nixon did not ban the Washington Post from the White House after the newspaper published the Pentagon Papers.

While the publication of the Pentagon Papers angered Nixon after his national security adviser Henry Kissinger told him the leaks made him seem like a “weakling,” the former president did not ban Post reporters from the White House for reporting on them. Later, when the Post ‘s reporting on the Watergate scandal gained steam, Nixon began barring reporters from covering social events at the White House — although the journalists still had their press credentials. In the movie, this ban comes earlier, when Hanks, as Bradlee, is trying to figure out how to cover one of the First Daughters’ nuptials, given that his reporters are banned from attending.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Contract With Israel
• Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
• Stop Looking for Your Forever Home
• The Sympathizer Counters 50 Years of Hollywood Vietnam War Narratives
• The Bliss of Seeing the Eclipse From Cleveland
• Hormonal Birth Control Doesn’t Deserve Its Bad Reputation
• The Best TV Shows to Watch on Peacock
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Mahita Gajanan at [email protected]

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

Everything You Need to Know Before Seeing The Post

By Bridget Read

Steven Spielberg’s latest film, The Post , out December 22, tells the true story of the Pentagon Papers and The Washington Post , one of the most thrilling moments in the history of modern journalism and a precursor to Richard Nixon’s Watergate downfall. The movie is also poised for awards season greatness, not only because it features two of the biggest stars in the world, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks (both of whom already received a Golden Globe nomination, with six total for the film), but because The Post is pitch-perfect for our current era.

As the Trump administration continues to demonize the free press , and the dire state of media has led to moguls buying up and killing off publications—sometimes seemingly out of spite — The Post doesn’t just depict intrepid journalists and editors, but also a brave publisher: The Washington Post ’s owner, Katharine Graham (Streep), who played an integral part in the newspaper’s decision to stand up to threats from the government and publish incredibly damning information about its actions during the Vietnam War. The movie presents a potent portrayal of the many, many people who put themselves at risk for the public good, a harrowing story of intrigue, and a very important example of someone—namely, Graham—putting her money where her mouth is in order to protect the newspaper she believed in. It’s also one of those films that everyone is going to see and talk about. And so should you. But before you do, some helpful background, below.

Who are Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee?

Katharine Graham was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, a financier who bought the flailing Post in the 1930s, and she grew up wealthy, but she wasn’t just a socialite; she worked as a reporter when she graduated from college, before marrying Philip Graham, who took over the paper while she raised their four children. Her marriage to Philip, who had what we now call bipolar disorder, turned out to be incredibly unstable. He eventually committed suicide, leaving Katharine with the newspaper to preside over, which had been all but run into the ground during his last turbulent years.

She ended up triumphing as the Post ’s owner, despite being the rare female publisher in a very male-dominated field and having to learn the ins and outs of management quickly. The paper became a powerhouse, again, due to her vision and under the direction of executive editor Ben Bradlee (portrayed by Hanks in the film), whom she hired from Newsweek . Fun fact: The famous Black and White Ball , thrown by Truman Capote, marked her coming-out as a media mogul and society force.

What are the Pentagon Papers?

In the summer of 1971, The New York Times published a series of leaked documents from the U.S. government. Called the Pentagon Papers, the documents were from a top-secret report named “United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967” and had been leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst. They showed how through the presidencies of Harry Truman to Lyndon Johnson, the government had lied to the American public for decades about its involvement in Vietnam. Among the most damning information exposed was the intervention of John F. Kennedy’s administration to assassinate South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, as well as the contrived success of the intense American bombing in North Vietnam. Nevertheless, it was the Nixon administration that couldn’t stand the leak, and his attorney general got a court order to stop the Times from further publishing information from the Papers.

Bradlee doggedly pursued the Papers in his own newsroom, wanting his reporters to also obtain and present the information for the public. A thriller-movie–style handover took place when editor Ben Bagdikian brought his own pages of the Pentagon Papers to Washington, D.C., under the utmost secrecy, so that Post reporters could start writing about them.

By Hannah Coates

By Christian Allaire

By Hannah Jackson

What did Graham do?

Graham came into play when the Post ’s legal and executive teams clashed with the newsroom. Publishing the Papers would jeopardize the newspaper’s first public stock offering, cost advertising, and potentially ruin the paper for violating the court order issued against the Times , some argued. Not publishing would make them look like ineffectual government stooges, others said. Graham was in the middle of hosting a party when she was forced to make the call—put the paper and her personal wealth at risk to go up against the U.S. government, or abstain and doom her paper’s fate in another way entirely.

Graham chose to publish, and the government reacted as expected, the court case making its way to the Supreme Court, before it handed down the landmark decision in favor of freedom of the press. It also solidified Graham as a publisher who would back her editors and writers, which became vital when the Post began investigating the Watergate break-in, leading to Nixon’s resignation and forever solidifying the power of the free press to change the world.

Get updates on the Met Gala

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions ), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Architectural Digest.. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

• CinéDweller : page d’accueil
• Biographies
• Tous les films
• Brèves cinéma
• Les dernières chroniques
• Les films par distributeur
•  Musique
• DVD/Blu-ray/VOD
• Les films par genre
• Dossier Porno
• Les Dossiers
• Les disparus
• Les acteurs
• Les actrices
• Les réalisateurs

Not a member? Join today

Pentagon Papers (The Post) : la critique du film (2018)

• Réalisateur : Steven Spielberg
• Acteurs : Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bradley Whitford, Tracy Letts, Matthew Rhys, Alison Brie, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Michael Stuhlbarg, Jesse Plemons
• Date de sortie: 24 Jan 2018
• Nationalité : Américain
• Titre original : The Post
• Année de production : 2017
• Scénariste(s) : Josh Singer, Liz Hannah
• Directeur de la photographie : Janusz Kaminski
• Compositeur : John Williams
• Société(s) de production : Amblin Entertainment, Dreamworks, Star Thrower Entertainment
• Distributeur (1ère sortie) : Universal Pictures International France
• Éditeur(s) vidéo : Universal Vidéo
• Date de sortie vidéo : 29 mai 2018 (DVD, blu-ray, VOD)
• Box-office France / Paris-périphérie : 1 338 048 / 418 605 entrées (35e annuel)
• Box-office nord-américain 81 903 458 $
• Budget : 50 000 000$
• Classification : Tous Publics
• Formats : 1.85 : 1 / Couleurs / Son : Dolby Digital / Dolby Surround 7.1 / SDDS / DTS (DTS: X)
• Festivals et récompenses : 2 Nominations aux Oscars (Meilleur film, Meilleure actrice pour Meryl Streep), 6 nominations aux Golden Globes (film, acteur, actrice... pour un drame)
• Illustrateur / Création graphique : InSync Plus - BLT Communications, LLC (affiche teaser US de l'escalier)
• Crédits : Copyrights 2017 Twentieth Century Fox Corporation and Storyteller Distribution CO. LLC All Rights Reserved

Pentagon Papers est un manifeste urgent pour la presse et la démocratie doublé d’un thriller épatant et d’une réflexion nécessaire sur la place des femmes dans la société. Le réalisateur de La Liste de Schindler qui redonne foi en l’Amérique. En deux mots, Spielberg président !

Synopsis : En 1971 éclate aux Etats-Unis l’affaire des “Pentangon Papers”, vaste fuite de renseignements liés à la Guerre du Vietnam. Les documents rendus publics par le Washington Post éclaboussent alors la classe politique US de l’époque.

Steven Spielberg garant de la démocratie américaine

Critique : The Post (titre oiriginal) est sorti dans le contexte politique de l’élection de Donald Trump, populiste éhonté qui allait bousculer les conventions et l’ordre moral d’un pays polarisé. L’ogre de la télé-réalité commençait à flouer les valeurs intrinsèques à la Constitution du pays ; piétinant allègrement ses textes et idéaux, à force de vérités alternées, d’approximations, et de brimades destinées au garde-fou de la démocratie, le quatrième pouvoir.

Retour à l’Histoire pour Spielberg

Pentagon Papers (titre français qui s’éloigne de la référence culturelle au Washington Post que beaucoup de Français ne connaissent pas), ne pouvait pas trouver meilleur environnement politique pour exister. Il en devenait un miracle de bon sens. Le film historique de Steven Spielberg, peut-être l’un de ses plus importants avec La liste de Schindler et La couleur pourpre , revient à-propos en 2018, rappelant avec intelligence un épisode méconnu de l’histoire américaine.

La presse se rebelle

Une autre époque, un autre président, mais des menaces évidentes contre le premier amendement, garant de la liberté d’expression, notamment celle de la presse. Celle-ci était virulemment attaquée par l’administration Nixon qui avait tout à perdre des révélations du New York Times ayant mis la main sur des informations compromettantes concernant l’ingérence américaine au Vietnam.

Vietnam : un mensonge d’État

Un dossier confidentiel, remis au premier organe de la presse écrite américaine, confirmait que la guerre en Asie était sue par les dirigeants américains comme étant vouée à l’échec, depuis ses premiers jours. Et pourtant, elle fut perpétuée de façon irrationnelle, pendant plus d’une décennie, au prix du sang versé de la jeunesse américaine, faisant fi des manifestations de jeunes touchés dans leur chair.

Le pouvoir réussisant à museler le New York Times pendant quelques jours pour des raisons judiciaires, ce fut alors le moment pour le Washington Post, deuxième média local dans le district de Columbia, de prendre le risque de devenir l’un des leaders nationaux de l’information en publiant des documents interdits que le seul le Times avait pu parcourir.

Au prix du scoop, celui de la démocratie

Mais se pose alors la question du prix du scoop : tomber à son tour sous la pression judiciaire sans avoir la solidité financière du Times ? Mettre au chômage des dizaines d’employés et détruire l’accomplissement d’une famille? Se retrouver en prison pour ses convictions ?

Les interrogations sont d’autant plus légitimes que tout se passe quelques jours après l’arrivée en Bourse du journal bien connu qui doit donc présenter des garanties à ses investisseurs.

Un film de grandes décisions

Spielberg évoque les choix d’une vie d’un homme, ou plutôt ceux d’une femme, Katharine Graham, veuve et donc dirigeante du Post : prise soudainement dans l’étau, entre le copinage de salon, très BFM, avec les politiques, et les décisions déontologiques, et l’avenir de sa société. Dans un imbroglio de contradictions inextricables, elle doit trouver où se situer. Pour affronter le plus grand combat de sa vie, elle doit aussi s’interroger sur les raisons éthiques d’une rédaction. Pour qui l’exécutif gouverne-t-il ? Lui-même ou le peuple, et donc, pour quoi les médias travaillent-ils ? Pour arranger les amis aux affaires ou, au contraire, informer les citoyens des limites du système ? Publier ou ne pas publier ?

Le présent est femme

Le personnage joué par Meryl Streep, désormais aux premières lignes contre l’autorité d’un Nixon coriace et vindicatif, est surtout l’héroïne d’une œuvre féministe. La femme se retrouve aux plus hautes sphères de décision dans le monde patriarcal des années 60 et du début des années 70. Les conventions la voudraient épouse, mère, femme au foyer, d’un tempérament docile, sotte en politique. Il faut alors le prétendre pour satisfaire l’ego de ces messieurs.

Pentagon Papers est doublement visionnaire

Outre l’urgence politique, Pentagon Papers est doublement visionnaire dans son traitement de la femme, puisqu’il sort quand le monde du cinéma est éclaboussé par l’affaire #MeToo. Spielberg vient rappeler aux politiques leurs devoirs, rappelle aussi à l’ordre des citoyens qui ont voté pour le mauvais homme, en leur remémorant la grandeur des valeurs démocratiques prônées par les pères fondateurs dans la Constitution de 1787. Mais, surtout le film se glisse dans les débats féministes de son époque, non pas en exhortant la délation sur les réseaux sociaux, mais en combattant, avec les grands moyens du cinéma, les inégalités de traitement faites aux femmes, les humiliations quotidiennes qu’elles subissent, en affirmant leur esprit fort, combatif, leur intelligence et perspicacité, y compris dans les décisions historiques de la nation.

Des propos aux armes artistiques épatantes

Les armes de Spielberg pour laver les femmes des affronts socioculturels se déploient en atouts artistiques majeurs : des acteurs épatants – Meryl Streep, qui passe par toutes les gammes d’émotion est magnifique -, des dialogues ciselés, un recul historique essentiel et un sens du divertissement qui ne rend jamais le pamphlet présomptueux, puisque cette page d’histoire est traitée en thriller palpitant.

Dans sa grande intelligence, cette plongée dans l’intensité des rédactions des plus grands canards américains parlera autant aux jeunes, qui y verront matière à s’interroger sur le pouvoir et le progrès, qu’aux adultes, qu’ils soient exigeants dans leurs choix cinématographiques ou qu’ils ne cherchent en Spielberg qu’une vulgarisation rythmée de l’histoire américaine.

Pentagon Papers , le prequel assumé des Hommes du président

En thriller journalistique et politique, Pentagon Papers est une leçon de démocratie universelle, doublée d’un suspense haletant malgré la conclusion déjà connue par tous. Car oui, on vous le rappelle, il ne s’agit ni plus ni moins que du prequel politique des Hommes du président (1976) d’Alan J. Pakula, et du scandale du Watergate qui allait mener à la destitution du président Nixon.

La séquence finale, en forme d’ouverture vers une suite rocambolesque à la Marvel prête à sourire dans sa forme, mais elle nous impose de nous replonger urgemment dans le film de Pakula avec Dustin Hoffman et Robert Redford, peut-être l’une des plus grandes pierres angulaires du cinéma politique américain.

Frédéric Mignard

Sorties de la semaine du 24 janvier 2018

Design : BLT Communications, LLC

Design : InSync Plus

Trailers & Vidéos

Bande-annonce de Pentagon Papers

Historique, Biopic

A voir aussi

Flics en jeans : la critique du film

Fermer les yeux : la critique du film

Insidious : The Red Door – la critique du film

Cinéma : La véritable histoire derrière le film « Pentagon Papers » avec Tom Hanks et Meryl Streep

Par La rédaction de Vanity Fair

Alors que les médias sont la cible privilégiée de Donald Trump , Steven Spielberg rend un vibrant hommage à la presse dans ce film de 2017. The Post (titre original) met ainsi en scène un moment pivot dans l’histoire du journalisme américain, la publication en 1971 des Pentagon Papers, deux ans avant le scandale du Watergate.

Le terme en question – qui a aussi donné son titre à la version française – désigne 7000 pages de documents évoquant l’implication des États-Unis dans la guerre du Vietnam entre 1955 et 1971, et notamment les mensonges de l'administration quant au conflit. Initialement ces dossiers top-secrets, transmis par l’analyste et lanceur d’alerte Daniel Ellsberg , ont été publiés dans le New York Times . Mais après seulement trois articles, le gouvernement Nixon obtient l’interdiction de leur publication par la justice. Ben Bagdikian , journaliste au Washington Post , récupère ces mêmes documents à Boston et les transporte en douce dans la capitale…. Achetant même un billet supplémentaire afin de les disposer sur le siège à côté de lui, dans l’avion, comme le mentionne le quotidien. L'idée ? Poursuivre le travail commencé par ses confrères avec l'aval du rédacteur en chef Ben Bradlee (joué à l'écran par Tom Hanks ). L’équipe transforme même la bibliothèque de ce dernier en lieu de travail pour parcourir et décrypter les feuilles, alors assemblées dans le désordre.

Alors que le service juridique s’y oppose, c’est à Katharine Graham , interprétée par Meryl Streep dans le film, qu’incombe la décision finale. Fille d’Eugene Meyer, le financier qui a racheté le Washington Post dans les années 30, elle en devient la patronne quand l’ex-directeur, son époux Phil Graham , se suicide. Elle est l’une des premières femmes à prendre la tête d’un groupe de presse, et c’est d’ailleurs elle qui débauche Ben Bradlee de Newsweek . Bien que proche du pouvoir, elle prend le risque de mettre en péril l’avenir du journal en transgressant l’ordre émis par la cour à l’encontre du New York Times . Un risque d'autant plus important que le quotidien est alors sur le point de devenir une compagnie publique. La businesswoman se trouve d'ailleurs à une soirée quand elle donne, au téléphone, son aval.

Après la publication du premier article, le 18 juin, le département de la Justice demande une injonction, qui lui est refusée. Au fil des appels, la Cour établit finalement le 30 juin que ces injonctions sont inconstitutionnelles. Les charges contre le lanceur d’alerte Daniel Ellsberg sont, elles aussi, finalement abandonnées. Ce coup médiatique précédera le scandale du Watergate, dans lequel le Washington Post et Katharine Graham auront encore une fois des rôles déterminants…

Par Valentine Servant-Ulgu

Par Chandler Tregaskes

Par Julie Patriat

Par Sarah Mercier

Par Erin Vanderhoof

Par Chris Murphy

PENTAGON PAPERS

Première femme directrice de la publication d’un grand journal américain, le Washington Post, Katharine Graham s’associe à son rédacteur en chef Ben Bradlee pour dévoiler un scandale d’État monumental et combler son retard par rapport au New York Times qui mène ses propres investigations. Ces révélations concernent les manœuvres de quatre présidents américains, sur une trentaine d’années, destinées à étouffer des affaires très sensibles… Au péril de leur carrière et de leur liberté, Katharine et Ben vont devoir surmonter tout ce qui les sépare pour révéler au grand jour des secrets longtemps enfouis…

Une bande d’irréductibles résistant à l’oppresseur, il n’en fallait pas plus pour que Papy Steven fasse de la résistance. À l’heure des « fake news » et des médias servant la soupe au pouvoir en place, Pentagon papers plonge dans les coulisses de la révélation du Washington Post mettant en lumière les véritables raisons de l’implication américaine au Vietnam par le biais du rapport McNamara .

Instructif mais aussi habilement divertissant, le nouveau drama historique du vétéran Spielberg se mue progressivement en thriller d’investigation à tendance féministe (le personnage de Meryl Streep est un plaisant pied de nez au patriarcat écrasant) et rappelle, derrière le fard hollywoodien, que la presse doit servir les gouvernés plus que les gouvernants. Cette piqûre de mémoire, impérative, réserve sous ses artifices un coeur vaillant et une mécanique redoutable. Steven Spielberg déroule sa partition jusqu’au dilemme éthique : les principes fondateurs de la presse doivent-ils plier face aux pressions de l’institution et des financiers, la censure est-elle acceptable sous couvert de sécurité d’état ? 

Ennemis d’état ?

Son exposé limpide et son tacle adressé à l’administration Nixon dissimulent une missive en direction d’un certain Donald mégalo ayant fait des journalistes ses ennemis publics. Et ce n’est clairement pas un hasard s’il décide d’ausculter la question des conflits d’intérêt des organes de presse tout en chatouillant le mâle alpha. Du haut de ses 71 ans, il rappelle à la nouvelle génération les bienfaits de la contestation et, sous l’apparente sobriété de son récit, fait jaillir ce qu’il faut de tension et de souffle épique. Le sentiment d’urgence est latent dans Pentagon papers , la machine à écrire devenant une arme démocratique plus puissante que les mitraillettes militaires. Spielberg envoie ses troupes en mission et de sa petite armée de l’ombre jaillit une femme, qui libère la parole des journalistes comme des femmes. Alors que le Time magazine a choisi les «  briseuses de silence  » comme personnalité(s) de l’année, ce choix ne pouvait s’offrir meilleur timing.  

De la newsroom fourmillante du Washington Post au bureau domestique isolé de Katharine Graham, Pentagon papers célèbre, paré d’une coloration féministe bienvenue, l’acte de résistance que semble devenu le journalisme d’investigation. 

PENTAGON PAPERS Réalisé par  Steven Spielberg Avec  Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bob Odenkirk… Etats-Unis – Thriller, drame  Sortie :  24 janvier 2018 Durée :   110 min

J’aime ça :

Ça peut vous intéresser :.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Civil War Link to Civil War
• Monkey Man Link to Monkey Man
• The First Omen Link to The First Omen

New TV Tonight

• The Sympathizer: Season 1
• Our Living World: Season 1
• Under the Bridge: Season 1
• The Spiderwick Chronicles: Season 1
• Conan O'Brien Must Go: Season 1
• Orlando Bloom: To the Edge: Season 1
• The Circle: Season 6
• Dinner with the Parents: Season 1
• Jane: Season 2

Most Popular TV on RT

• Fallout: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• Parasyte: The Grey: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• Sugar: Season 1
• We Were the Lucky Ones: Season 1
• Baby Reindeer: Season 1
• X-Men '97: Season 1
• A Gentleman in Moscow: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Fallout Link to Fallout
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Best Movies of 2024: Best New Movies to Watch Now

25 Most Popular TV Shows Right Now: What to Watch on Streaming

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Fallout : What It Gets Right, and What It Gets Wrong

CinemaCon 2024: Day 3 – Disney Previews Deadpool & Wolverine , Moana 2 , Alien: Romulus , and More

• Trending on RT
• Best TV 2024
• Play Movie Trivia
• CinemaCon 2024
• Popular Movies

The Pentagon Papers

2003, Drama, 1h 36m

Rate And Review

Super Reviewer

Rate this movie

Oof, that was Rotten.

Meh, it passed the time.

It’s good – I’d recommend it.

So Fresh: Absolute Must See!

What did you think of the movie? (optional)

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Step 2 of 2

How did you buy your ticket?

Let's get your review verified..

AMCTheatres.com or AMC App New

Cinemark Coming Soon

We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.

Regal Coming Soon

Theater box office or somewhere else

By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

The pentagon papers   photos.

Daniel Ellsberg (James Spader) works for a think tank, analyzing data about the escalating Vietnam War, which he ardently supports. Visiting Saigon, he discovers that the situation is more dire than he had been led to believe. Back in Washington, D.C., he gains access to documents detailing the U.S. government's intent to deceive the public about the war's progress. With help from his wife, Patricia (Claire Forlani), and friend Anthony Russo (Paul Giamatti), he leaks the papers to the press.

Genre: Drama

Original Language: English

Director: Rod Holcomb

Writer: Jason Horwitch

Release Date (DVD): Feb 17, 2004

Runtime: 1h 36m

Production Co: Columbia

Cast & Crew

James Spader

Daniel Ellsberg

Claire Forlani

Patricia Marx

Paul Giamatti

Anthony Russo

Harry Rowen

Rod Holcomb

Jason Horwitch

Critic Reviews for The Pentagon Papers

Audience reviews for the pentagon papers.

There are no featured reviews for The Pentagon Papers because the movie has not released yet ().

Movie & TV guides

Play Daily Tomato Movie Trivia

Discover What to Watch

Rotten Tomatoes Podcasts

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

le premier mois sans engagement

• Opinions et débats
• Immigration
• Dossiers politique
• Dossiers famille et éducation
• Voir les dossiers France
• International
• Moyen-Orient
• Voir les dossiers International
• Catholicisme
• Catholicisme France
• Catholicisme Monde
• Le Collège des cardinaux
• La Documentation catholique
• Protestantisme
• Dossiers spiritualité
• Lexique religieux
• Voir les dossiers Religion
• Économie française
• Économie internationale
• Entreprises
• Média et presse
• Économie solidaire
• Voir les dossiers Économie
• Programme et critiques TV
• Art et expositions
• Livres et idées
• Voir les dossiers Culture
• COP28 2023 (Dubaï)
• Biodiversité
• Voir les dossiers Planète
• Alimentation et santé
• Écologie et santé
• Voir les dossiers Santé
• Art de vivre
• Recettes de cuisine
• Voir les dossiers Art de vivre
• Jeux Olympiques Paris 2024
• Voir les dossiers Sport
• Dernières infos AFP
• Newsletters
• Lire le Journal
• La Croix l’Hebdo
• Mots Croisés
• La Croix International
• Librairie La Croix

« Pentagon Papers » : Des libertés toujours à défendre

Pentagon Papers raconte l’histoire de la bataille livrée par le Washington Post en 1971 pour publier des documents sur la guerre du Vietnam impliquant plusieurs présidents. Au sommet de son art, Steven Spielberg signe un film engagé sur la liberté de la presse mais surtout le portrait sensible d’une femme affirmant son pouvoir, à laquelle Meryl Streep prête toute l’étendue de son talent.

• Céline Rouden ,
• le 23/01/2018 à 16:38
• Modifié le 24/01/2018 à 09:02

réservé aux abonnés

Lecture en 3 min.

Steven Spielberg plonge​​​​​​​  le spectateur dans l’atmosphère bouillonnante d’une rédaction des années 1970.

 Niko Tavernise/Universal

• Commenter Réagir
• Envoyer par mail Envoyer
• Partager sur Facebook Partager
• Partager sur Twitter Twitter

Pentagon Papers ***

de Steven Spielberg

Film américain, 1 h 55

L’ultime scène de Pentagon Papers montre une façade d’immeuble, la nuit, percée par les faisceaux lumineux de plusieurs lampes de poche. Un gardien, constatant l’effraction, signale au Talkie-Walkie un cambriolage en cours.

Le film de Steven Spielberg s’achève là où commence Les Hommes du président , d’Alan J. Pakula (1976) qui racontait l’enquête des deux journalistes du Washington Post ayant révélé le scandale du Watergate. On peut y voir l’hommage d’un réalisateur, qui signe là son film le plus engagé, à celui longtemps considéré comme le maître du thriller politique.

Il s’agit surtout d’une mise au point. « Pentagon Papers est le préquel (une histoire se déroulant avant celle racontée dans un autre film, NDLR) des Hommes du président, soulignait Steven Spielberg lors de son passage à Paris. C’est le courage des deux personnages de mon film à agir pour donner crédibilité et indépendance au Washington Post qui ouvre la voie à la publication de l’enquête de Bob Woodward et Carl Bernstein, puis à la démission de Nixon. »

Deux légendes du journalisme

Ces deux personnages, ce sont Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) et Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), respectivement présidente et rédacteur en chef du Washington Post. Le film est centré sur ce couple de presse, deux légendes du journalisme, au moment où ils doivent prendre la décision la plus difficile de leur carrière : publier un rapport confidentiel impliquant plusieurs présidents sur la gestion de la guerre du Vietnam, alors que le New York Times en est empêché par la justice. Ce bras de fer engagé avec l’administration Nixon constituera un tournant pour la liberté de la presse aux États-Unis.

En choisissant de raconter cet épisode, l’intention du réalisateur est évidente. Un an après l’arrivée de Donald Trump à la Maison-Blanche, le film répondait à une urgence. « La presse n’a jamais subi d’attaques aussi fortes , estime-t-il. Cela m’a paru pertinent de le faire à ce moment-là. »

Presse, politique et lobbies

Pentagon Papers n’a cependant rien d’un manifeste politique sentencieux. Dans une mise en scène éblouissante, Steven Spielberg, au sommet de son art, nous plonge dans l’atmosphère bouillonnante d’une rédaction des années 1970 avec ses machines à écrire, ses téléscripteurs et ses pneumatiques, tout comme dans les salons feutrés des palaces new-yorkais où se côtoient représentants du pouvoir et patrons de presse.

Construit comme un thriller – dont le suspense culmine lors d’une incroyable scène de conversation téléphonique au cours de laquelle Katherine Graham, soumise à des avis divergents, doit donner ou non son feu vert –, il n’évacue pas pour autant les enjeux, souvent complexes, qui pèsent sur chacun des personnages à une époque où l’indépendance de la presse ne va pas encore tout à fait de soi.

Mais – et c’est là tout le génie de Steven Spielberg – cette quête de liberté va peu à peu se confondre avec celle d’une femme, Kay Graham. Devenue, à la mort de son mari, présidente du Washington Post, le journal fondé par son père, cette grande bourgeoise, plus à l’aise dans les réceptions que dans les conseils d’administration, trouve là l’occasion d’asseoir une autorité qui lui fait encore défaut.

Une époque de conquête des libertés

Spielberg s’amuse ainsi à montrer la réalité d’une époque pas si lointaine où les conseils d’administration n’étaient composés que d’hommes et où, dans les salles de rédaction, les seules femmes étaient des secrétaires…

Meryl Streep prête toute l’étendue de son talent à ce personnage en proie aux doutes et au manque de confiance en elle, constamment ramenée à son statut de femme par ses conseillers. C’est pourtant elle qui fera la preuve du plus grand courage en publiant ces documents, alors qu’elle vient d’introduire le journal en Bourse pour assurer sa survie économique.

Dans la restitution minutieuse de ces années 1970, grâce notamment au travail sur la lumière et les décors, on sent chez Spielberg une certaine nostalgie pour cette époque. Celle de la conquête de libertés, qu’il ne faut jamais renoncer à défendre, mais aussi celle où publier une information prenait du temps…

----------------

Les « Pentagon Papers »

Ce rapport confidentiel de 7 000 pages a été rédigé en 1967. Il analyse les décisions des gouvernements américains ayant conduit à la guerre du Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg, analyste militaire de la Rand Corporation (think tank financé par le gouvernement), en transmet une copie à un journaliste du New York Times qui en commence la publication le 13 juin 1971. Le 15 juin, le gouvernement Nixon obtient une injonction de la justice intimant au journal de cesser la publication. Le 18 juin, le Washington Post en publie quand même des extraits. Le 30 juin 1971, la Cour suprême donne raison aux journaux estimant qu’une presse libre « doit être au service des gouvernés, non des gouvernants » .

• liberté de la presse
• Critique cinéma

L’essentiel ce matin

• Iran-Israël : la crainte d’un embrasement

Au Tchad, des réfugiés soudanais en proie à la famine

• Notre-Dame de Paris : cinq ans après l’incendie, le mystère reste entier

• Transport ferroviaire : malgré l’échec de Railcoop, une « envie de train »

Iran-Israël, la tentation de l’abîme

Ex-otage au mali : l’étonnant abandon du père « ha-jo ».

• Contrôle technique des deux-roues : entrée en vigueur d’une mesure toujours contestée

Vous devez être connecté afin de pouvoir poster un commentaire

Déjà inscrit sur la Croix ?

Pas encore abonné ?

• Le journal papier et l’Hebdo en version numérique
• Les 3 newsletters quotidiennes « L’essentiel »
• Les newsletters thématiques
• L’accès aux archives

• L’art de la parole : trois idées pour développer son éloquence
• Drogue : en prison, des opérations « cellule nette » pour cibler les détenus proches du narcobanditisme
• Iran-Israël : les deux pays s’accusent mutuellement à la tribune de l’ONU
• Soudan : une conférence à Paris sur le drame humanitaire alors que la guerre s’étend
• Guerre Israël-Hamas : les boulangeries rouvrent au compte-gouttes à Gaza
• Iran-Israël : le pape s’alarme d’« une spirale de violence » et craint un élargissement du conflit
• L’Église d’Ardèche invente un nouveau modèle avec moins de prêtres
• Le Vatican s’alarme d’une menace à la liberté religieuse en France
• Abus : décès du prêtre Joannes Rivoire, accusé d’agressions sexuelles sur des Inuits
• Emmanuel, propriétaire d’un magasin de prêt-à-porter : « Les agriculteurs nous nourrissent, nous les habillons »
• Tamise trop polluée, pas de plongeon pour le vainqueur de la course Cambridge-Oxford
• Le mouvement de l’ESS se « politise » avec Benoît Hamon à sa tête

L’actu à ne pas manquer

• Actualité politique
• Gouvernement Attal
• Faits divers
• Procès et affaire judiciaire
• Loi, projet de loi et réforme
• Attentat en France
• Baccalauréat 2024
• Guerre en Ukraine
• Attentat dans le monde
• Guerre, crise et conflit
• Conflit israélo-palestinien
• Conflit du Haut-Karabakh
• Géopolitique
• Élections européennes 2024
• Élection présidentielle américaine 2024
• Tension Chine - États-Unis
• Union européenne (UE)
• Organismes internationaux
• Personnalité politique
• Pape François
• Vatican et Curie romaine
• Synode sur la synodalité (2021/2024)
• Santé du pape
• Démission du pape
• Conclave (élection du pape)
• Fête religieuse catholique 2024
• Glossaire mots religieux
• Sacrement catholique
• Emploi et travail
• Conjoncture (entreprise)
• Consommation
• Pouvoir d’achat
• Biocarburant
• Épargne et placement
• Impôt sur le revenu 2024
• Grève en France
• Crise économique et sociale
• Transition énergétique
• Réchauffement et changement climatique
• Sources d'énergie
• Ouragan, cyclone et typhon
• Incendies de forêt
• Énergies renouvelables
• COP - Conférence climats
• Catastrophe et accident nucléaire
• Découverte et exploration de l'Espace
• Coronavirus (covid-19)
• Vaccin (vaccination)
• Épidémie et pandémie
• Drogue et addiction
• Scandale alimentaire et sanitaire
• Perturbateur endocrinien
• Corps humain
• PMA (procréation médicalement assistée)
• Livre, roman et BD
• Critique ciné, film et documentaire
• Prix littéraires 2024
• Festival BD d'Angoulême 2024 (FIBD)
• Oscars 2024
• César du cinéma 2024
• Festival de Cannes 2024
• Festival d’Avignon 2024
• Sortie culturelle en famille
• Personnalité culturelle
• Mort et funérailles de personnalité
• Grands dossiers culture
• Conseils de jardinage
• Retraite spirituelle
• Pèlerinage à Lourdes 2024
• Pèlerinage chemin de Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle
• Série et reportage
• Idées cadeaux de Noël 2024
• Service client
• Courrier des lecteurs
• Résilier votre abonnement
• L'équipe
• Espace Presse
• Découvrir LA CROIX numérique
• Faire un don
• Inscription à la newsletter
• Mots croisés gratuits en ligne
• La Croix Español
• La Croix Africa
• BAYARD BELGIQUE
• BAYARD JEUNESSE
• EDITIONS BAYARD
• Groupe Bayard
• MILAN PRESSE
• Librairie Bayard
• NOTRE FAMILLE
• NOTRE TEMPS
• EVEILALAFOI.FR
• LE MONDE DE LA BIBLE
• POINTS DE REPÈRE
• PRIONS EN EGLISE
• Chantons en eglise

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

The Pentagon Papers

Defense worker Daniel Ellsberg seeks to publish a series of classified government documents detailing the true nature of America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Defense worker Daniel Ellsberg seeks to publish a series of classified government documents detailing the true nature of America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Defense worker Daniel Ellsberg seeks to publish a series of classified government documents detailing the true nature of America's involvement in the Vietnam War.

• Rod Holcomb
• Jason Horwitch
• James Spader
• Claire Forlani
• Paul Giamatti
• 17 User reviews
• 5 Critic reviews
• 1 win & 4 nominations total

• Daniel Ellsberg

• Patricia Marx

• Anthony Russo

• Harry Rowen

• John McNaughon

• Carol Ellsberg

• John Mitchell

• H.R. Haldeman

• John Ehrlichman

• Neil Sheehan

• Randy Kehler

• Senator Fulbright
• (as George Robertson)

• Leonard Boudin

• Charles Nesson

• Judge W. Matthew Byrne
• All cast & crew
• Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

• Trivia The name of the book that Daniel Ellsberg ( James Spader ) was reading was "The Life of Gandhi" about Mohandas K. Gandhi (aka "Mahatma Gandhi").
• Goofs The exterior of a bar supposedly located in Saigon clearly displays signs written in the Thai language, and some of the signs are from contemporary times, as evidenced by product logos, rather than from 1965.
• Connections Featured in The 55th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards (2003)

User reviews 17

• classicalsteve
• Dec 8, 2012
• March 9, 2003 (United States)
• United States
• Pentagon Papers
• Cinespace Film Studios - 11030 Highway 27, Kleinburg, Ontario, Canada (Studio)
• City Entertainment
• Paramount Pictures
• See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

• Runtime 1 hour 39 minutes
• Black and White

Related news

Contribute to this page.

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

‘I’ve never regretted doing it’: Daniel Ellsberg on 50 years since leaking the Pentagon Papers

The man who exposed US lies about the Vietnam war says the culture of official secrecy is worse today. But he urges whistleblowers: ‘Don’t wait years till the bombs are falling and people have been dying’

W hen the police arrived, a 13-year-old boy was photocopying classified documents. His 10-year-old sister was cutting the words “top secret” off each page. It seemed their dad, Daniel Ellsberg, had been caught red-handed.

But the officers were responding to a false alarm and did not check what Ellsberg and his young accomplices were up to. “It was a very nice family scene,” the 90-year-old recalls via Zoom from his home in Kensington, California. “It didn’t worry them.”

So night after night the photocopying went on, the crucial means that allowed strategic analyst Ellsberg to leak the Pentagon Papers, a secret report that exposed government lies about the Vietnam war. The New York Times began publishing excerpts 50 years ago on Sunday.

The papers, a study of US involvement in south-east Asia from 1945 to 1967, revealed that president after president knew the war to be unwinnable yet continued to mislead Congress and the public into an escalating stalemate costing millions of lives.

After their release Ellsberg was put on trial for espionage and faced a potential prison sentence of 115 years, only for the charges to be dropped. Once branded “the most dangerous man in America”, Ellsberg is now revered as the patron saint of whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

So, half a century on, is he glad he did it? “Oh, I’ve never regretted for a moment doing it from then till now,” he says, wearing dark jacket, open-necked shirt and headphones against the backdrop of a vast bookcase. “My one regret, a growing regret really, is that I didn’t release those documents much earlier when I think they would have been much more effective.

“I’ve often said to whistleblowers, don’t do what I did, don’t wait years till the bombs are falling and people have been dying.”

Ellsberg’s own experience in Vietnam was formative. In the mid-1960s he was there on special assignment as a civilian studying counter-insurgency for the state department. He estimates that he and a friend drove about 10,000 miles, visiting 38 of the 43 provinces, sometimes linking up with troops and witnessing the war up close.

“By two years in Vietnam, I was reporting very strongly that there was no prospect of progress of any kind so the war should not be continued. And that came to be the majority view of the American people before the Pentagon Papers came out.

“By ’68 with the Tet offensive, by ’69, most Americans already thought it was immoral to continue but that had no effect on [president Richard] Nixon. He thought he was going to try to win it and they would be happy once he’d won it, however long it took.

“But the other side of it was that Vietnam became very real to me and the people dying became real and I had Vietnamese friends. It occurs to me I don’t know of anyone of my level or higher – any deputy assistant secretary, any assistant secretary, any cabinet secretary – who had a Vietnamese friend. In fact, most of them had never met a Vietnamese.”

Only recently, as he prepares for the 50th anniversary, has Ellsberg dwelled on how doubts about the war went higher in the political hierarchy than is widely understood. “The Pentagon Papers are always described as revealing to people how much lying there was but there was a particular kind of lying that’s not revealed in the Pentagon Papers.

“Yes, everybody was lying but for different reasons and for different causes. In particular, a very large range of high-level doves thought we should get out and should not have got involved at all. They were lying to the public to give the impression that they were supporting the president when they did not believe in what the president was doing.

“They did not agree with it but they would have spoken out at the cost of their jobs and their future careers. None of them did that or took any risk of doing it and the price of the silence of the doves was several million Vietnamese, Indochinese, and 58,000 Americans.”

But Ellsberg did break the silence. Why was he, unlike them, willing to risk life imprisonment for a leak that he knew had only a small chance of ending the war? He says he was inspired by meeting people who resisted being drafted into military service and, unlike conscientious objectors, did not take alternative service.

“They didn’t go to Sweden. They didn’t get a deferment. They didn’t plead bone spurs like Donald J Trump. They chose a course that put them in prison. They could easily have shown their protests in other ways but this was the strongest way they could say this war is wrong and it’s a matter of conscience and I won’t participate in it.

“That kind of civil courage is contagious and it rubbed off on me. That example opened my eyes to the question, what can I do to help end this war, now that I’m ready to go to prison?”

In 1969 Ellsberg was working as a Pentagon consultant at the Rand Corporation thinktank in Santa Monica, California, and still had access to the secret study of the war, which by this time had killed about 45,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. He decided to take the plunge.

“I said I’ve got in my safe at Rand 7,000 pages of documents of lies, deceptions, breaking treaties, hopeless wars, killing, et cetera and I don’t know whether it’ll have any effect to put it out but I’m not going to be party to concealing that any more.”

Ellsberg had a friend whose girlfriend owned an advertising agency with a photocopier, or Xerox machine. Over eight months he spent many nights making copies of the Pentagon Papers, twice with the help of his 13-year-old son Robert.

He explains: “He was going to hear that his father had gone crazy or was a spy or was communist and I wanted him to see that I was doing this in a businesslike way because I thought it had to be done. And also to leave him with the precedent in his mind that this is the kind of thing he might have to do some time in his life and that there were times you had even to go to prison, which I thought would happen shortly.”

The owner of the agency often mis-set the office alarm and so often the police would come, including twice when Ellsberg was at work. But he kept his cool. “The first time I was at the Xerox machine. I look up at the glass door, there’s knocking on it and two police outside. ‘Wow, these guys are good, how did they get on to this?’

“But I remember covering the top secret pages with a magazine and I closed the Xerox cover where I was copying these things and opened the doors and, ‘What can I do for you?’ But there were a few seconds there of thinking, ‘Well, this is over.’”

Ellsberg tried and failed to persuade members of Congress to put the papers in the public domain. On 2 March 1971 he made contact in Washington with Neil Sheehan, a New York Times reporter he first met in Vietnam. After Sheehan’s death aged 84 earlier this year, the Times published a posthumous interview with him suggesting that Ellsberg had felt conflicted over handing over the documents.

Ellsberg responds: “He seemed to believe, according to that story, that I had been reluctant to give it to the Times. It’s hard to imagine that he believed that but maybe so. At any rate, that was not the case. I was very anxious for the Times to print it.”

The New York Times did so on 13 June 1971. The night before, Ellsberg had gone to the cinema with a friend to see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford. “We stayed up and saw the early morning edition around midnight and so that was marvelous.”

The Nixon administration obtained a court order preventing the Times from printing more of the documents, citing national security concerns. But Ellsberg leaked copies to the Washington Post and 17 other newspapers, prompting a legal battle all the way to the supreme court, which ruled 6-3 to allow publication to resume.

This stirring showdown over press freedom – retold in Steven Spielberg’s 2017 film The Post, in which Ellsberg is played by the British actor Matthew Rhys – had a bigger impact that the Times’s first article. “The initial reaction was nil on the Sunday when they came out,” Ellsberg says. “The Times was baffled and dismayed. Nobody reacted at all.

“It was Nixon’s fatal decision to enjoin them and the willingness across the country to commit civil disobedience and publish material that the attorney general and the president were saying every day, ‘This is dangerous to national security, we can’t afford one more day of it.’ Nineteen papers in all defied that. I don’t think there was any other wave of civil disobedience like that in any respect I can think of by major institutions across the country.”

But the government wanted revenge. Ellsberg spent 13 days in hiding from the FBI but eventually went on trial in 1973 accused of espionage, conspiracy and stealing government property. The charges were dismissed due to gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering against him – crimes which ultimately contributed to Nixon’s downfall.

The high-profile trial had ensured huge media coverage of the Pentagon Papers. But Ellsberg says: “The effect on Nixon’s policy was zero. The war went on: a year later, the biggest bombing of the war and then, at the end of that year, 18 months later, the heaviest bombing in human history.

“So as far as one could see, as I said at the time, the American people at this moment have as much influence over their country’s foreign policy as the Russian people had over the invasion of Czechoslovakia.”

Nixon resigned over Watergate in 1974 and the Vietnam war ended the following year. In the decades since, Ellsberg has continued to champion Manning, Assange, Snowden and others charged under the Espionage Act. The climate, he warns, has become more restrictive and punitive than the one he faced 50 years ago.

“The whistleblowers have much less protection now. [President Barack] Obama brought eight or nine or even 10 cases, depending on who you count, in two terms, and then Trump brought eight cases in one term. So sources are much more in danger of prosecution than they were before me and even after me for 30 years.”

Last month the nonagenarian Ellsberg returned to the fray by releasing classified documents showing that US military planners pushed for nuclear strikes on mainland China in 1958 to protect Taiwan from an invasion by communist forces, a scenario that has gained fresh relevance amid rising US-China tensions.

It is a dare for prosecutors to come after him again. If they do, he wants to see the Espionage Act tested by the supreme court. He argues that the government is using it much like Britain’s Official Secrets Act even though America, unlike Britain, guarantees freedom of speech through the first amendment to the constitution.

“We don’t have an Official Secrets Act because we have a first amendment but that has not been addressed by the supreme court,” says Ellsberg, still going strong after an hour-long interview. “So I’m willing to see this case go up to the supreme court. Not that I have any desire to go to prison or not. And it would have to move fairly fast to get me in prison in my lifetime.”

• Vietnam war
• The Observer
• US national security

Most viewed

Avis sur Pentagon Papers

588 critiques spectateurs.

3 311 abonnés 1 464 critiques Suivre son activité

1 523 abonnés 1 486 critiques Suivre son activité

252 abonnés 1 980 critiques Suivre son activité

480 abonnés 425 critiques Suivre son activité

47 abonnés 275 critiques Suivre son activité

32 abonnés 273 critiques Suivre son activité

73 abonnés 379 critiques Suivre son activité

784 abonnés 2 027 critiques Suivre son activité

1 009 abonnés 1 410 critiques Suivre son activité

82 abonnés 150 critiques Suivre son activité

67 abonnés 221 critiques Suivre son activité

69 abonnés 657 critiques Suivre son activité

1 194 abonnés 1 952 critiques Suivre son activité

463 abonnés 1 394 critiques Suivre son activité

353 abonnés 1 235 critiques Suivre son activité

• Meilleurs films
• Meilleurs films selon la presse

Steven Spielberg's Pentagon Papers Movie Cast: A Rundown Of The Stars

Steven Spielberg is already deep in production on his next film, The Papers , and while we knew that two huge stars had joined the cast, it's now been revealed that even more famous faces are going to be a part of the movie. The movie, which will center on the Washington Post's publication of the classified Pentagon Papers in 1971, is going to boast quite the packed cast. Read on to see who's involved in the The Papers .

Meryl Streep

Meryl Streep is on board to play Washington Post publisher Kay Graham in The Papers . Along with the Post's editor Ben Bradlee, she challenged the federal government over their right to publish the Pentagon Papers. Streep, who's often hailed as the greatest actress of her generation, is coming off her 20th Oscar nomination for her performance in Florence Foster Jenkins last year. She will also be seen soon in the Mamma Mia sequel and Mary Poppins Returns .

Tom Hanks is set to portray Post editor Ben Bradlee in Spielberg's drama. While this will mark the first time that Hanks and Streep have shared the screen together, this will be the actor's fifth time working with Spielberg. The two-time Oscar winner was recently seen in Sully , Inferno and The Circle , and is also currently working on his voice part as Woody for Toy Story 4 .

Sarah Paulson

Sarah Paulson has become a TV mainstay over the past few years, mostly due to her work with Ryan Murphy on American Horror Story , Feud and American Crime Story , for which she won a Primetime Emmy and Golden Globe for her portrayal of lawyer Marcia Clark. She'll also be seen on the big screen in next year's Ocean's Eight with another all star cast.

Bob Odenkirk

Bob Odenkirk is best known to TV audiences as Saul Goodman on the hit Breaking Bad , and in that show's prequel series Better Call Saul. Odenkirk is also known for his work in comedy, and has written for shows like Saturday Night Live , Late Night With Conan O'Brien and W/ Bob and David , which he also starred in with David Cross.

Matthew Rhys

Actor Matthew Rhys is currently known as America's favorite undercover Soviet spy after spending five seasons on the FX hit The Americans . He's also appeared in ABC's Brothers & Sisters and the mini-series Death Comes to Pemberley , and can next be seen on the big screen in Jungle Book .

Jesse Plemons

Jesse Plemons had his breakout role on Friday Night Lights from 2006-2011, and since then the actor has gone on to a number of notable TV and film projects. Among other things, he can be seen in The Master , Breaking Bad , Bridge of Spies and Fargo , which saw him receive an Emmy nomination in 2016. Other upcoming projects include American Made , Game Night and The Bell Jar .

CINEMABLEND NEWSLETTER

Your Daily Blend of Entertainment News

David Cross

Audiences usually associate David Cross with comedy, and that's for good reason. He spent four seasons as never-nude Tobias on Arrested Development , and also created and starred in Mr. Show with Bob and David with Bob Odenkirk, and reunited with him for W/ Bob and David . Most recently, he was seen on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt .

Carrie Coon

Actress Carrie Coon has been making waves since her work in Gone Girl in 2014. Since then, she's had critically acclaimed turns in The Leftovers and Fargo , and she'll soon be seen in the horror film The Keeping Hours .

Bradley Whitford

Many people can't think about Bradley Whitford without being reminded of his wonderful turn as Josh on The West Wing for seven seasons, but the actor has done much more than that. He's brought his talents to over 100 film and television projects, including The Cabin in the Woods , Transparent and the recent horror hit Get Out .

Alison Brie

After first coming to the attention of most people on NBC's meta comedy Community , Alison Brie has made quite a career for herself. Along with appearing on screen in Mad Men , How to be Single and the upcoming Netflix series GLOW , she's lent her voice to BoJack Horseman and The Lego Movie .

Bruce Greenwood

After 40 years on the big and small screens, it would be highly unusual if you hadn't seen something that Bruce Greenwood has starred in. St. Elsewhere , Knots Landing , I, Robot , the rebooted Star Trek films, Mad Men and American Crime Story have all seen his talents. He most recently appeared in the Dirty Dancing remake.

Tracy Letts

Tracy Letts is a writer and actor who's appeared in Judging Amy , Prison Break , Homeland , Elvis & Nixon and Divorce . He's also adapted several of the stage plays he's written for the big screen or TV, including Superior Donuts and August: Osage County .

Michael Stuhlbarg

Michael Stuhlbarg has made a name for himself in films and television shows like A Serious Man , Blue Jasmine , Men in Black 3 , Boardwalk Empire and Doctor Strange . He can currently be seen in Fargo .

Zach Woods has filled his resume with work in a lot of notable projects, including The Office , The Other Guys , Kroll Show , Veep and The Good Wife . He's been a major player on HBO's Silicon Valley since it started in 2014.

According to Variety , the film is currently on the fast track and the filmmakers are looking to have it ready for this year's awards season, with The Papers seeing a limited release on December 22 and then going wide on January 12, 2018.

Covering The Witcher, Outlander, Virgin River, Sweet Magnolias and a slew of other streaming shows, Adrienne Jones is a Senior Content Producer at CinemaBlend, and started in the fall of 2015. In addition to writing and editing stories on a variety of different topics, she also spends her work days trying to find new ways to write about the many romantic entanglements that fictional characters find themselves in on TV shows. She graduated from Mizzou with a degree in Photojournalism. 

That Time Matthew McConaughey Confirmed To Reese Witherspoon He's Constantly Asked If He's In Sweet Home Alabama

'This Guy Hates Me': Daniel Radcliffe Admits Filming Harry Potter With Alan Rickman Was Terrifying To Him For Years Until They Bonded

The Michael Jackson Biopic Is Now Filming, And Producer Graham King Says It Will Cover Michael’s 'Complicated' Legacy

Most Popular

• 2 That Time Matthew McConaughey Confirmed To Reese Witherspoon He's Constantly Asked If He's In Sweet Home Alabama
• 3 The Studio: What We Know About The New Apple TV+ Show From Seth Rogen
• 4 Rare Disneyland Concept Art Shows Off Unused 'Anything Can Happen' Land Elements I'd Have Absolutely Loved As A Kid (And As An Adult)
• 5 ‘I Still Can’t Believe It’: Lori Loughlin Recalls The Emotional Moment She Heard Full House Co-Star Bob Saget Died

[CRITIQUE] PENTAGON PAPERS

Avec PENTAGON PAPERS , Steven Spielberg met en scène le récit marquant des années 1970 avec un regard de notre époque.

Il n’est plus nécessaire de le présenter et ça depuis longtemps. Celui qui a marqué des générations de cinéphiles, qui continue de faire briller les yeux de millions de spectateurs est cette année, une fois encore, au cœur de tous les désirs cinématographiques. Ce n’est pas avec un mais deux films que Steven Spielberg compte marquer l’année 2018. Au printemps prochain il sortira son très attendu Ready Player One qui signera le grand retour du papa d’E.T. dans la science-fiction. Mais aujourd’hui, il brille avec son THE POST re-titré, à tort, PENTAGON PAPERS en France.

PENTAGON PAPERS a le privilège d’être parmi les meilleurs films réalisés par Steven Spielberg . Bien plus qu’un thriller politique banal, il est un film humaniste, progressiste et parfaitement en phase avec les deux époques dans lesquelles il s’inscrit: à la fois les années 1970 (année du récit) et la décennie dans laquelle nous vivons. Le cinéaste américain offre, en plus d’une leçon de cinéma et de journalisme, une critique profonde de l’Amérique de Trump et plus largement le gouvernement américain dans son ensemble.

Pauline Mallet

[button color= »white » size= »normal » alignment= »center » rel= »nofollow » openin= »samewindow » url= »#comments »]Votre avis ?[/button]

Nos dernières bandes-annonces

Abonnez-vous à notre newsletter